"It is not true that I do not feel that they or anyone else should not be playing the Music of Frank Zappa and it is endlessly boring to be reading this opinion on this here forum. What is true is that Frank Zappa's music should NOT be exploited by anyone who does not pay the rights-holders for the USE of the music. That is not Frank Zappa's idea of a good time - nor is it mine. I have not forgotten who played in FZ's bands - and better that some of them should not forget their enjoyment of the perks of their employment opportunities!!! But, Roy has his nerve complaining about FZ in interviews now and if I catch another example I will officially go on record for what he has never taken responsibility for and remind him that we did not report him to the police all those years ago. FAYPWAPIYH!"

The qoute "...if I catch another example I will officially go on record for what he has never taken responsibility for and remind him that we did not report him to the police all those years ago." Really makes one wonder in light of all we know now about his crimes and that this type of offender starts young and is normally not caught for years and has committed these crimes many times before caught...that staement gives me a "wow" moment.

Whatever Gail knew about Estrada, it couldn't be that he was a pedophile. She would never keep that a secret or use it to blackmail him, would she? I mean, that would be vile. It seems like some of you are suggesting she is an accomplice. Not only that, but that she would only turn him in if he badmouthed ZFT. That would be terrible. I don't believe that. Maybe Estrada forged Zappa's signature on a check or something. I don't even want to speculate.

Whatever Gail knew about Estrada, it couldn't be that he was a pedophile. She would never keep that a secret or use it to blackmail him, would she? I mean, that would be vile. It seems like some of you are suggesting she is an accomplice. Not only that, but that she would only turn him in if he badmouthed ZFT. That would be terrible. I don't believe that. Maybe Estrada forged Zappa's signature on a check or something. I don't even want to speculate.

How old are you Downer, you don't seem to have any perspective, back then a Pedophile was like the Boggy Man and no one ever new they could look like anyone. There was no internet, hell even in LA there were only about 10 TV channels, and news papers were huge and took some time to read cover to cover. It wasn't like now, hell someone would be very hesitant to reveal someone for that if they new it. People did not rat each other out, you had the left over bad taste of what happened to the Jews in WWII and how people would give them up to garnish favor for themselves. You had the law of the Mafia, you tell and you may never turn up again…people really minded their own business, to a fault, with hind site yes. But people did not even talk readily about God fearing missionary sex much less could they conceive of this kind of scum and what they are capable of. Perspective tells me that they could have known he had crossed a line at sometime with a youth, but people did not know these people were sociopathic relentless criminally insane violent offenders, no one new.

Whatever Gail knew about Estrada, it couldn't be that he was a pedophile. She would never keep that a secret or use it to blackmail him, would she? I mean, that would be vile. It seems like some of you are suggesting she is an accomplice. Not only that, but that she would only turn him in if he badmouthed ZFT. That would be terrible. I don't believe that. Maybe Estrada forged Zappa's signature on a check or something. I don't even want to speculate.

How old are you Downer, you don't seem to have any perspective, back then a Pedophile was like the Boggy Man and no one ever new they could look like anyone. There was no internet, hell even in LA there were only about 10 TV channels, and news papers were huge and took some time to read cover to cover. It wasn't like now, hell someone would be very hesitant to reveal someone for that if they new it. People did not rat each other out, you had the left over bad taste of what happened to the Jews in WWII and how people would give them up to garnish favor for themselves. You had the law of the Mafia, you tell and you may never turn up again…people really minded their own business, to a fault, with hind site yes. But people did not even talk readily about God fearing missionary sex much less could they conceive of this kind of scum and what they are capable of. Perspective tells me that they could have known he had crossed a line at sometime with a youth, but people did not know these people were sociopathic relentless criminally insane violent offenders, no one new.

Second guess Gail, if you wish. I'll wait until she decides to be more specific. I learned not to put my own meanings to her words after the horrible thing Wild Man Fischer did to Moon Unit turned out to be throwing a bottle at her.

_________________You're probably wondering why I'm here(not that it makes a heck of a lot of a difference to ya)

Whatever Gail knew about Estrada, it couldn't be that he was a pedophile. She would never keep that a secret or use it to blackmail him, would she? I mean, that would be vile. It seems like some of you are suggesting she is an accomplice. Not only that, but that she would only turn him in if he badmouthed ZFT. That would be terrible. I don't believe that. Maybe Estrada forged Zappa's signature on a check or something. I don't even want to speculate.

How old are you Downer, you don't seem to have any perspective, back then a Pedophile was like the Boggy Man and no one ever new they could look like anyone. There was no internet, hell even in LA there were only about 10 TV channels, and news papers were huge and took some time to read cover to cover. It wasn't like now, hell someone would be very hesitant to reveal someone for that if they new it. People did not rat each other out, you had the left over bad taste of what happened to the Jews in WWII and how people would give them up to garnish favor for themselves. You had the law of the Mafia, you tell and you may never turn up again…people really minded their own business, to a fault, with hind site yes. But people did not even talk readily about God fearing missionary sex much less could they conceive of this kind of scum and what they are capable of. Perspective tells me that they could have known he had crossed a line at sometime with a youth, but people did not know these people were sociopathic relentless criminally insane violent offenders, no one new.

Even if they did 'catch him' etc, then he would have given them the 'It's the first time, she started it, I thought she was ...(whatever age), I was really drunk/out of it, I've never done it before, it was a weak moment, it started out innocently, it's not my scene, I'm under SUCH a lot of stress lately, I'd never do it again, how could you even THINK,' etc ad infinitum.

These people are con-men, it's Spin from a 'friend' who is gazing into your eyes with that Sincere Look, pleading, reasoning, excusing, accusing (you of having a bad mind) etc.

Sometimes you give people the benefit of the doubt because they make such a convincing song-and-dance about it --- even when you are 95% sure they're guilty. And they watch themselves around you for a while, and it dies down.

I admit that my previous interventions here haven't been very graceful, and had decided to quit the thread. But it needs to be said that convicted sex offenders are a motley crew, and I think we need more information about the nature of Roy's crime before labelling him as the worst of worst of sociopaths. Or do you think all sexual crimes are equally horrible? Isn't there an American state that has a law against having an erection (clothed) in public?

So, what exactly did Roy do? To put it bluntly - did he sleep with a sexually mature 13-year old or did he violently rape a helpless little child? I don't know, and want to reserve my final judgment until I do.

_________________We make a special art in an environment hostile to dreamers. Frank Zappa, 1971

I admit that my previous interventions here haven't been very graceful, and had decided to quit the thread. But it needs to be said that convicted sex offenders are a motley crew, and I think we need more information about the nature of Roy's crime before labelling him as the worst of worst of sociopaths. Or do you think all sexual crimes are equally horrible? Isn't there an American state that has a law against having an erection (clothed) in public?

So, what exactly did Roy do? To put it bluntly - did he sleep with a sexually mature 13-year old or did he violently rape a helpless little child? I don't know, and want to reserve my final judgment until I do.

From what I have read it was a molesting a child under the age of 14 years, I also read that it was a child of a friend or family member, he is in his late 60's, a third striker, we know he has committed the crime far more than he has been caught, there are no mitigating circumstances.

I know most everyone on this site is smarter than me, but I guess you all need me around to keep your head out of the sand on this subject, how is it you people have no knowledge of this subject?

"Tuesday night’s episode, titled “Topless Showgirls,” featured girls as young as eight performing a sexually charged, provocative showgirl-like routine in a local dance competition, donning barely-there sparkly flesh-colored bras and panties to give the illusion of nudity."

_________________“The power of pop music to corrupt and putrify the minds of world youth are virtually limitless."

"Tuesday night’s episode, titled “Topless Showgirls,” featured girls as young as eight performing a sexually charged, provocative showgirl-like routine in a local dance competition, donning barely-there sparkly flesh-colored bras and panties to give the illusion of nudity."

These predators tend to try and get into institutions and situations that involve children being put in their charge, which makes the mental harm to the child far worse as these are the folks who were supposed to monitor and protect these kids. To say it is a Left Coast thing is very short sited, this goes on nation wide, lets not forget the recent Penn State Scandal…

My young daughter brought home a book published by Scholastic on a girl television star, following this celeb from her budding childhood, up until her present age of 20. It creeped me out looking at it. There was something unseemly about it. Porn with clothes on. This isn't just my sick mind. It seem like something a pedophile would have in his/her trunk.

Well OK, if we're going to play that game, Thinman, how about his (make-believe?) cadging a blowjob of Artie on Volume 5.

I don't see where Gas Mask comes into it, though - there is no "sex" or "violence" in that...just noise.

Plook: you're obviously coming at this from a religious perspective. Putting all your faith in the genetic flaw/"bad seed" theory, and underrating the probability that "learned behavior" could be the usual catalyst for creation of pedophilic instincts. Couldn't bear to face that, could you: the possibility that normal people like yourself might be able to plant that bad seed in a very young person, turning them from potentially normal into a dangerous crazy (like Roy) whose fetishes have subsumed their common sense.

Clue number one: "Broth reminds me of nuns - I see them smashing kids with rulers" - the devil is in the final detail, that as a result of "her" experiences it is now "munchkins" that get "her" hot (as opposed to nuns, rulers or green scratchy sweaters).

Clue number two: Michael Kenyon and FZ's drawing a parallel between him and Roy via that reference to Roy's old catchphrase. Kenyon could so easily have progressed from forcing enemas on college educated females, to forcing the other kind of anal penetration on much-younger females. Presumably that would be a more efficient way to recreate the "anal trauma" that he knew (and everyone of a certain age knows) from personal experience early in life?!

Thinman wrote:

Some secret(?) clues from FZ's oevre that early on he could at least have been aware of some RE sexual behavior specialities:

- Afternoon Of A Sexually Aroused Gas Mask- Right There- dedication to Roy during the outro of Illinois Enema Bandit on ZINY (I always wondered about this)- rubber doll episode in BS

Plook: you're obviously coming at this from a religious perspective. Putting all your faith in the genetic flaw/"bad seed" theory, and underrating the probability that "learned behavior" could be the usual catalyst for creation of pedophilic instincts. Couldn't bear to face that, could you: the possibility that normal people like yourself might be able to plant that bad seed in a very young person, turning them from potentially normal into a dangerous crazy (like Roy) whose fetishes have subsumed their common sense.

I am not a religious man, I did study world religions rather extensively, but I believe that religion is the cause of most of the world’s problems. I do have a soft spot in my heart for Taoism and find the Kybalion to be a possible link between science and what we call the spiritual realm, but that is a different subject.

Learned behavior is certainly a factor in the world’s troubles we need look no further than white supremacy to see that, but when it comes to deep seeded "mental" behavior if you will, there is a lot of new research that is leaning towards a genetic component. I don’t intend to say it is the only cause or even the main cause. I keep mentioning it because I was surprised to see so many forum members dismiss this out of hand, if I keep mentioning it that maybe some will research this more and see that this may be a viable area of cause.

The Sociopath Next Door is a book that is written specifically on sociopathy and a rather good one. They have determined that sociopathy is BOTH genetic AND learned behavior. Genetics allows for the ability to learn it. However in a good environment, sociopathy may not develop despite the genetic markers in the brain.

Just as an aside, it is very difficult to prove behavior by genetics. It can be shown anecdotally but not proven. For example, if they thought they found an answer and said "We have determined that a particular gene sequence causes people to become pedophiles, all we have to do is test it!" Who will step up and give it a try?

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Don't Be Stupid Unless You Want To

Just as an aside, it is very difficult to prove behavior by genetics. It can be shown anecdotally but not proven. For example, if they thought they found an answer and said "We have determined that a particular gene sequence causes people to become pedophiles, all we have to do is test it!" Who will step up and give it a try?

Actually I believe how a lot of these genetic markers are being identified is through checking brain activity and the physiology in people with different conditions and then once a group of people are identified checking their genetic sequence for matches, I believe at a certain point the commonalities will create a statistical match and therefore the gene can be identified.

Thats just fine for hole number 3 and its gold content, but in no way relates to the nature of proof.

Lets say that you find common markers among thousands of pedophiles. Then you find one that doesn't have those markers. Proof is for things like 2 + 2 = 4 and in that case 4 = x + y, and we're not really not sure what x or y is because they don't fit the model. Or what if someone has those markers but isn't a pedophile? It no longer qualifies as proof, its just a hole where gold is likely. Plus, its insinuation if you start telling some random person "You have genetic markers for pedophilia so look out, cuz we're looking at you". That kinda shit leads to people getting killed by the government for looking guilty. When you have no definitive proof it's just a poll with some percentage of reliability. Proof requires predictable repeatability, not a poll.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Don't Be Stupid Unless You Want To

Thats just fine for hole number 3 and its gold content, but in no way relates to the nature of proof.

Lets say that you find common markers among thousands of pedophiles. Then you find one that doesn't have those markers. Proof is for things like 2 + 2 = 4 and in that case 4 = x + y, and we're not really not sure what x or y is because they don't fit the model. Or what if someone has those markers but isn't a pedophile? It no longer qualifies as proof, its just a hole where gold is likely. Plus, its insinuation if you start telling some random person "You have genetic markers for pedophilia so look out, cuz we're looking at you". That kinda shit leads to people getting killed by the government for looking guilty. When you have no definitive proof it's just a poll with some percentage of reliability. Proof requires predictable repeatability, not a poll.

Actually what you are saying is exactly what you expect to see in a scientific method, there will be a greater percentage that fit the criteria, but there are often variables. We would also expect to see some who have the markers but do not exhibit the effects, this is best seen with disease and infection, we call these people immune, and immunity has always existed in nature…these things you say are making the point.

That is why physics equations often take into account certain facts that divert from normally will see in order to come up with quantities for things that may have variables that will affect a reasonable quantitative amount.

A great example of this is the Drake Equation, it has several variables and the different quantitative amounts you insert will give you a variable amount, this gives you a scale…kind of a high end or low end, but somewhere within the variables lays an amount. Is that the actual amount, no, it’s an estimate, does it mean its fake, no, it is your best range…but we know the range exists.

Yes, that range of anecdotal evidence. In this situation, how is that useful? Are people going to be tested at birth and constantly monitored even though people like zacpassman believe that environment is critical to the situation? I'm not at all sure anymore where you are going with this.

_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Don't Be Stupid Unless You Want To

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest

You cannot post new topics in this forumYou cannot reply to topics in this forumYou cannot edit your posts in this forumYou cannot delete your posts in this forumYou cannot post attachments in this forum